1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to recombinant DNA technology. DNA and vectors having engineered recombination sites are provided for use in a recombinational cloning method that enables efficient and specific recombination of DNA segments using recombination proteins. The DNAs, vectors and methods are useful for a variety of DNA exchanges, such as subcloning of DNA, in vitro or in vivo.
2. Related Art
Site specific recombinases. Site specific recombinases are enzymes that are present in some viruses and bacteria and have been characterized to have both endonuclease and ligase properties. These recombinases (along with associated proteins in some cases) recognize specific sequences of bases in DNA and exchange the DNA segments flanking those segments. The recombinases and associated proteins are collectively referred to as “recombination proteins” (see, e.g., Landy, A., Current Opinion in Biotechnology 3:699-707 (1993)).
Numerous recombination systems from various organisms have been described. See, e.g., Hoess et al., Nucleic Acids Research 14(6):2287 (1986); Abremski et al., J. Biol. Chem. 261(1):391 (1986); Campbell, J. Bacteriol. 174(23):7495 (1992); Qian et al., J. Biol. Chem. 267(11):7794 (1992); Araki et al., J. Mol. Biol. 225(1):25 (1992); Maeser and Kahnmann (1991) Mol. Gen. Genet. 230:170-176).
Many of these belong to the integrase family of recombinases (Argos et al. EMBO J. 5:433-440 (1986)). Perhaps the best studied of these are the Integrase/att system from bacteriophage λ (Landy, A. Current Opinions in Genetics and Devel. 3:699-707 (1993)), the Cre/loxP system from bacteriophage P1 (Hoess and Abremski (1990) In Nucleic Acids and Molecular Biology, vol. 4. Eds.: Eckstein and Lilley, Berlin-Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag; pp. 90-109), and the FLP/FRT system from the Saccharomyces cerevisiae 2μ circle plasmid (Broach et al. Cell 29:227-234 (1982)).
Backman (U.S. Pat. No. 4,673,640) discloses the in vivo use of λ recombinase to recombine a protein producing DNA segment by enzymatic site-specific recombination using wild-type recombination sites attB and attP.
Hasan and Szybalski (Gene 56:145-151 (1987)) discloses the use of λ Int recombinase in vivo for intramolecular recombination between wild type attP and attB sites which flank a promoter. Because the orientations of these sites are inverted relative to each other, this causes an irreversible flipping of the promoter region relative to the gene of interest.
Palazzolo et al. Gene 88:25-36 (1990), discloses phage lambda vectors having bacteriophage λ arms that contain restriction sites positioned outside a cloned DNA sequence and between wild-type loxP sites. Infection of E. coli cells that express the Cre recombinase with these phage vectors results in recombination between the loxP sites and the in vivo excision of the plasmid replicon, including the cloned cDNA.
Pósfai et al. (Nucl. Acids Res. 22:2392-2398 (1994)) discloses a method for inserting into genomic DNA partial expression vectors having a selectable marker, flanked by two wild-type FRT recognition sequences. FLP site-specific recombinase as present in the cells is used to integrate the vectors into the genome at predetermined sites. Under conditions where the replicon is functional, this cloned genomic DNA can be amplified.
Bebee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,434,066) discloses the use of site-specific recombinases such as Cre for DNA containing two loxP sites is used for in vivo recombination between the sites.
Boyd (Nucl. Acids Res. 21:817-821 (1993)) discloses a method to facilitate the cloning of blunt-ended DNA using conditions that encourage intermolecular ligation to a dephosphorylated vector that contains a wild-type loxP site acted upon by a Cre site-specific recombinase present in E. coli host cells.
Waterhouse et al. (PCT No. 93/19172 and Nucleic Acids Res. 21 (9):2265 (1993)) disclose an in vivo method wherelight and heavy chains of a particular antibody were cloned in different phage vectors between loxP and loxP 511 sites and used to transfect new E. coli cells. Cre, acting in the host cells on the two parental molecules (one plasmid, one phage), produced four products in equilibrium: two different cointegrates (produced by recombination at either loxP or loxP 511 sites), and two daughter molecules, one of which was the desired product.
In contrast to the other related art, Schlake & Bode (Biochemistry 33:12746-12751 (1994)) discloses an in vivo method to exchange expression cassettes at defined chromosomal locations, each flanked by a wild type and a spacer-mutated FRT recombination site. A double-reciprocal crossover was mediated in cultured mammalian cells by using this FLP/FRT system for site-specific recombination.
Transposases. The family of enzymes, the transposases, has also been used to transfer genetic information between replicons. Transposons are structurally variable, being described as simple or compound, but typically encode the recombinase gene flanked by DNA sequences organized in inverted orientations. Integration of transposons can be random or highly specific. Representatives such as Tn7, which are highly site-specific, have been applied to the in vivo movement of DNA segments between replicons (Lucklow et al., J. Virol. 67:4566-4579 (1993)).
Devine and Boeke Nucl. Acids Res. 22:3765-3772 (1994), discloses the construction of artificial transposons for the insertion of DNA segments, in vitro, into recipient DNA molecules. The system makes use of the integrase of yeast TY1 virus-like particles. The DNA segment of interest is cloned, using standard methods, between the ends of the transposon-like element TY1. In the presence of the TY1 integrase, the resulting element integrates randomly into a second target DNA molecule.
DNA cloning. The cloning of DNA segments currently occurs as a daily routine in many research labs and as a prerequisite step in many genetic analyses. The purpose of these clonings is various, however, two general purposes can be considered: (1) the initial cloning of DNA from large DNA or RNA segments (chromosomes, YACs, PCR fragments, mrRNA, etc.), done in a relative handful of known vectors such as pUC, pGem, pBlueScript, and (2) the suboloning of these DNA segments into specialized vectors for functional analysis. A great deal of time and effort is expended both in the initial cloning of DNA segments and in the transfer of DNA segments from the initial cloning vectors to the more specialized vectors. This transfer is called subcloning.
The basic methods for cloning have been known for many years and have changed little during that time. A typical cloning protocol is as follows:                (1) digest the DNA of interest with one or two restriction enzymes;        (2) gel purify the DNA segment of interest when known;        (3) prepare the vector by cutting with appropriate restriction enzymes, treating with alkaline phosphatase, gel purify etc., as appropriate;        (4) ligate the DNA segment to vector, with appropriate controls to estimate background of uncut and self-ligated vector;        (5) introduce the resulting vector into an E. coli host cell;        (6) pick selected colonies and grow small cultures overnight;        (7) make DNA minipreps; and        (8) analyze the isolated plasmid on agarose gels (often after diagnostic restriction enzyme digestions) or by PCR        
The specialized vectors used for subcloning DNA segments are functionally diverse. These include but are not limited to: vectors for expressing genes in various organisms; for regulating gene expression; for providing tags to aid in protein purification or to allow tracking of proteins in cells; for modifying the cloned DNA segment (e.g., generating deletions); for the synthesis of probes (e.g., riboprobes); for the preparation of templates for DNA sequencing; for the identification of protein coding regions; for the fusion of various protein-coding regions; to provide large amounts of the DNA of interest, etc. It is common that a particular investigation will involve subcloning the DNA segment of interest into several different specialized vectors.
As known in the art, simple subcloning can be done in one day (e.g., the DNA segment is not large and the restriction sites are compatible with those of the subcloning vector). However, many other subcloning can take several weeks, especially those involving unknown sequences, long fragments, toxic genes, unsuitable placement of restriction sites, high backgrounds, impure enzymes, etc. Subcloning DNA fragments is thus often viewed as a chore to be done as few times as possible.
Several methods for facilitating the cloning of DNA segments have been described, e.g., as in the following references.
Ferguson, J., et al. Gene 16:191 (1981), discloses a family of vectors for subcloning fragments of yeast DNA. The vectors encode kanamycin resistance. Clones of longer yeast DNA segments can be partially digested and ligated into the subcloning vectors. If the original cloning vector conveys resistance to ampicillin, no purification is necessary prior to transformation, since the selection will be for kanamycin.
Hashimoto-Gotoh, T., et al. Gene 41:125 (1986), discloses a subcloning vector with unique cloning sites within a streptomycin sensitivity gene; in a streptomycin-resistant host, only plasmids with inserts or deletions in the dominant sensitivity gene will survive streptomycin selection.
Accordingly, traditional subcloning methods, using restriction enzymes and ligase, are time consuming and relatively unreliable. Considerable labor is expended, and if two or more days later the desired subclone can not be found among the candidate plasmids, the entire process must then be repeated with alternative conditions attempted. Although site specific recombinases have been used to recombine DNA in vivo, the successful use of such enzymes in vitro was expected to suffer from several problems. For example, the site specificities and efficiencies were expected to differ in vitro; topologically-linked products were expected; and the topology of the DNA substrates and recombination proteins was expected to differ significantly in vitro (see, e.g., Adams et al., J. Mol. Biol. 226:661-73 (1992)). Reactions that could go on for many hours in vivo were expected to occur in significantly less time in vitro before the enzymes became inactive. Multiple DNA recombination products were expected in the biological host used, resulting in unsatisfactory reliability, specificity or efficiency of subcloning. In vitro recombination reactions were not expected to be sufficiently efficient to yield the desired levels of product.
Accordingly, there is a long felt need to provide an alternative subcloning system that provides advantages over the known use of restriction enzymes and ligases.